Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
R.Parthasarathy - Appellants
Versus
R.P.Udayasuriyan - Respondents
C.M.A. Nos.3395, 3396 of 2017 and CMP.Nos.21530, 21531 of 2017
Decided on : 03-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.D.Shivakumaran
For the Respondents: Mr.M.R.Jothimanian, Mr.Abdul Saleem for M/s.AAV Partners
The fulfillment of conditions stipulated in a family arrangement deed and the lack of evidence to prove fraudulent obtaining of the deed are crucial in justifying the grant of temporary injunction.
Headnote:
Family Arrangement - Dispute over reconstitution of petrol bunk dealership - Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C - [Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C] - The court discussed the family arrangement deed dated 30.04.2014 and 18.8.2017, and the conditions stipulated therein. The key legal provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C were applied to determine the entitlement of the plaintiff to reconstitute the dealership and the grant of temporary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had acted upon the family arrangement deed dated 30.04.2014 and had fulfilled the conditions stipulated therein, thus warranting the grant of temporary injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought reconstitution of a petrol bunk dealership based on a family arrangement deed dated 30.04.2014. The defendants resisted, claiming that the deed was not acted upon and that a subsequent deed dated 18.8.2017 was executed. The trial Court granted temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, which was challenged by the defendants in the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court found that the plaintiff had acted upon the family arrangement deed dated 30.04.2014 and had fulfilled the conditions stipulated therein, justifying the grant of temporary injunction. The Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit on merits within six months.
Issues: Dispute over reconstitution of petrol bunk dealership, validity of family arrangement deeds, entitlement to temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the family arrangement deed dated 30.04.2014 and the lack of evidence to prove fraudulent obtaining of the deed were crucial in granting the temporary injunction.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed, confirming the order granting temporary injunction, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit on merits within six months.
1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order dated 27.11.2017 passed in I.A.Nos.514 and 515 of 2017 in O.S.No.272 of 2017 on the file the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff and the appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The plaintiff has filed the suit being O.S.No.262 of 2017 seeking the following relief:
(i) Declaring the plaintiff's right to get the reconstitution of the suit petrol bunk dealership by inducting only the plaintiff as per the family arrangement deed dated 30.04.2014.
(ii)Cancelling the alleged family arrangement deed dated 18.8.2017 executed by the 1st defendant and registered as Document No.77/2017 in Book No.IV on the file of the Salem West Jt.I District Registrar.
(iii)Directing the 1st defendant to reconstitute the suit petrol bunk dealership by inducting only the plaintiff as per the family arrangement deed dated 30.04.2014 by means of mandatory injunction.
(iv)Restraining the defendants and their men, agents and servants etc., from reconstituting the suit petrol bunk as per the alleged family arrangement deed dated 18.08.2017 by means of permanent injunction.
(v)Restraining the 2nd defendant and his men, agents and servants from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit petrol bunk by means of permanent injunction.
(vi)Granting such other relief or relief as this Court deems fit and proper in the above stated circumstances.
(vii)Awarding cost of the suit to the plaintiff by the defendants and thus render justice.
3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.514 of 2017 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the 2nd defendant and his men, agents and servants etc., from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petrol bunk till the disposal of the suit. The plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.515 of 2017 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents and servants etc., from in any way reconstituting the license of the petrol bunk as per the alleged family arrangement deed dated 18.8.2017 created by the 1st defendant till the disposal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff seeking temporary injunction alleging that he and the 2nd defendant are sons of the 1st defendant. The half of the land in which the suit petrol bunk situate belongs to the plaintiff and the other half belongs to another brother P.Rajasekaran. The plaintiff and his brother Rajasekaran leased out their respective properties to the 3rd defendant under registered lease deed dated 18.8.1997 to run the suit petrol bunk in their properties. On 30.4.2014, the father of the plaintiff executed a family arrangement deed in favour of his legal heirs and as per the family arrangement deed, the plaintiff's father agreed to transfer the license of the suit petrol bunk in favour of the plaintiff on condition that within one month from the date of the said family arrangement, the plaintiff has to pay the debt obtained by the father of the plaintiff from Karur Vysya Bank for installation of the petrol bunk by mortgaging the 2nd defendant's property and also the plaintiff has to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- each to the father and the mother till his life time.
5. According to the plaintiff, he had discharged the debt due to Karur Vysya Bank and released the property of the 2nd defendant on 15.5.2014. On 16.5.2014, the 1st defendant handover the suit petrol bunk to the plaintiff and from that the plaintiff was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the suit petrol bunk and also he was paying the monthly instalments of Rs.25,000/-.
6. It is alleged that the 1st defendant submitted application before the 3rd defendant for reconstitution of the suit Retail Outlet Dealership by inducting the plaintiff as Proprietor. But the 2nd defendant preventing the 1st defendant from trans
